January 2003 — Features
Print this articleClick here to receive your FREE subscription to T.H.E. Journal
Getting On Board With Online Testing
Like most technology being adopted in education, computerized testing has the potential to improve individual student learning. That was Idaho’s goal when it selected a new Internet-enabled state test in spring 2002. The move represented years of study and a desire to meet the requirements of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. It also positions Idaho as the first state in the nation to embrace a technology-based testing system that measures academic growth. My district, Rigby, was one of a handful of districts that were early adopters of the computerized system.
Comparing Tests
Like virtually every state, Idaho relied on traditional paper-and-pencil standardized testing tools — the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS) and the Test of Achievement and Proficiency (TAP) — as primary indicators of school performance. However, these types of tests do not adequately show academic growth; that is, whether a child is being effectively taught what he or she needs to grow and what instructional methods can be used best to achieve that growth. So, we had to find a new tool to address these things, especially considering that growth will likely be the most important measure in meeting the goals of the new education law. Also, since school districts in Idaho began taking advantage of technology long ago, we wanted to investigate whether we could use that technology for our testing.
To study the needs and identify potential solutions, the Idaho Department of Education formed an Assessment and Account-ability Commission of five educators and five representatives of the state’s business community. The commission’s charter was to review and offer recommendations for statewide testing procedures that provided data to assess what’s being taught, as well as assure individual student learning and growth.
The commission repeatedly found teachers unhappy with traditional state-mandated tests, because these tests didn’t truly measure, report or track student growth; i.e., they didn’t provide much insight into how teachers could modify the curriculum to improve learning. In addition, parents wanted to see more information about the scholastic progress of their children. The business community registered a warning about the impact of a less than well-educated workforce on the state’s future economy. And administrators recognized the need to measure their districts’ testing, achievement and accountability processes against the intention of the NCLB Act.
Committed to total objectivity in its review, the commission gathered data from other states, reviewed best and worst practices, and held public meetings throughout the state. Dissatis-faction with traditional high-stakes testing ran high. According to Linda Clark, Ph.D., director of instruction for Joint School District No. 2 in Meridian, Idaho, “Comparing an individual’s progress with others’, as occurs with standardized tests, d'es not truly measure real growth.”
Untimely data was also a problem. Jerry Hutchins, Ph.D., director of technology, testing and database management in the Blaine County School District, says: “There was a lot of frustration with state-mandated tests occurring early in the school year, usually mid-October, with results not available until January. Not only did the test data fail to indicate what the students had learned during the year, but by the time a teacher received the results roughly half the year had passed, leaving minimal time to adjust instruction.”
